Only if the new product has unique properties that the two individual patents didn't have on their own, that the two patents are responsible for.
If all they do is to duplicate the functions of the individual patents in the new device, then they can't be used. That's even if the new device does have unique properties overall. The unique properties must be from the combination of those two patents.
Like taking a) melted chocolate and b) warmed milk and c) aerating the two to form a Latte.
C is an unique process that builds upon the existence of a) and b).
Why not just sue all the MPEG holders? They all "infringe."
MPEG4 came out in 1998, and earlier versions like around 1993. But, waiting to 2007 and then suing over it is quite trollish to me.
Hey, where's your video codec format? Don't have one? Don't actually make a product? Well, then, fuck off.
I'm still waiting for Sandisk to get sued over Vorbis. Each day that passes "must" mean it is legal.
Exactly. this is a frivolous lawsuit. Antiquated, overly-broad technology patents lapse when they are no longer appreciably different from public domain knowledge. In any case, after 17 to 20 years the patent is not valid, so in the case of video compression, if it is still valid today, it was probably improperly granted.
A latte is two shots of espresso, with 8-10 oz of frothed milk.
The machine that made espresso rightfully got a patent; you can't patent recipes.
In my example a and be were the process/machines that prepared the ingredients
-- a) ground the coffee/chocolate and heated/liquified it -- a standalone end result-- e.g. for drinking
-- b) heated the milk without boiling-- another standalone end result -- e.g. for drinking
C, came along and said if I take the results of a) and b) and put them through a machine/process that aerates and turns them into a separate standalone end result -- e;g; a latte, or maybe a custard, quiche, or maybe just instant latte powder.
Company "A" has two patents, and two products use them, one in each.
Company "B" takes those two patents, and builds a product that combines them. Is this allowed? Take a quick guess without looking it up.
If company B can convince the patent office that its combination of the ideas is not obvious, then it can get a patent of its own on the combination. However, this in no way protects B from being sued for infringing on the company A patents! A patent is a license to sue, it is not a protection from being sued.
In my example a and be were the process/machines that prepared the ingredients
-- a) ground the coffee/chocolate and heated/liquified it -- a standalone end result-- e.g. for drinking
-- b) heated the milk without boiling-- another standalone end result -- e.g. for drinking
C, came along and said if I take the results of a) and b) and put them through a machine/process that aerates and turns them into a separate standalone end result -- e;g; a latte, or maybe a custard, quiche, or maybe just instant latte powder.
Yeah, I got your point.
I just think though the last example is somewhat obvious, OR, you bought the machine to do it with from the original maker thus haven't side stepped him, OR if you did make your machine you could patent it IF it was a new process (which it doesn't seem that way but really isn't the argument anyhow ) and that patent would include the old ones that you built on but you would need to license the previous tech anyhow.
I once read that Microsoft had more lawyers than programmers. Apple will be there soon. They should start to counter-sue claiming defamation. I would think the Apple brand is very valuable. They have a lot of money to tie up these people in expensive litigation for years.
I don't understand why Apple, and other companies don't have small teams to find these patents and buy them before these other companies do. It would be much cheaper in the long run.
I don't understand why companies like Apple and Oracle don't team up and contribute to the prior art process more:
The article mentions that Multimedia Patent Trust asks for an injunction. However, Apple doesn't realistically face the risk of an injunction because of the three patents asserted against it, two have already expired and the third will expire within less than a year (i.e., before the lawsuit will be decided under any realistic time line).
I've reviewed the complaint and published my analysis here:
I also emailed it to AppleInsider but not sure if the author of the article here received it. My blog post also explains the litigation history of that organization, which previously sued Microsoft, Dell, Gateway, and beyond that, the high tech world and its dog.
Those who are primarily interested in injunctions against products should focus on ITC investigations involving Apple and other players. The ITC's import bans are basically the equivalent of an injunction. Here's an overview of ITC investigations involving smartphones and similar technologies, and of the accused products:
It would be nice if there were a shorter term on these patents, to make it harder for something like this to become common place and then sue. No way they didn't treat this as an investment and wait until Apple got big.
Or at least say you can't get damages for the past 10 years.
My 2 cents.
There's no point in suing a company with no money.
Clean room implementations of how stuff works is legal.
Meanwhile, I'm going to sue because the hot HOT coffee that I FREELY ordered, burned me when I put it between my legs while I drove down a bumpy road...
I also emailed it to AppleInsider but not sure if the author of the article here received it. My blog post also explains the litigation history of that organization, which previously sued Microsoft, Dell, Gateway, and beyond that, the high tech world and its dog.
Thanks much for the pointer to previous analysis of Alcatel-Lucent v. MPEGLA
(or vice versa). From the get-go this seems like leftovers from the MPEGLA MPEG2/H.264
"essentiality" determinations. Entities are clearly testing the "jump into the [patent] pool"
entreaty from MPEGLA, and how holdouts try to game the pool, looking for bugs in
the honor-amongst-thieves system.
What surprises me a bit is that one of the patents was assigned to IBM.
They have as much to do with MPEG2/H.264 (but not so much .MP3) as
anyone, but didn't participate in the pool. Presumably this is because they
are such a general patent monster that they cross-license with everyone
else in the computer business (software+hardware) and prefer their own
extraction of a pound of flesh above and beyond mere cross-licensing.
I never suspected that IBM would re-assign lesser patents to troll organizations
Thanks much for the pointer to previous analysis of Alcatel-Lucent v. MPEGLA
(or vice versa). From the get-go this seems like leftovers from the MPEGLA MPEG2/H.264
"essentiality" determinations. Entities are clearly testing the "jump into the [patent] pool"
entreaty from MPEGLA, and how holdouts try to game the pool, looking for bugs in
the honor-amongst-thieves system.
What surprises me a bit is that one of the patents was assigned to IBM.
They have as much to do with MPEG2/H.264 (but not so much .MP3) as
anyone, but didn't participate in the pool. Presumably this is because they
are such a general patent monster that they cross-license with everyone
else in the computer business (software+hardware) and prefer their own
extraction of a pound of flesh above and beyond mere cross-licensing.
I never suspected that IBM would re-assign lesser patents to troll organizations
to test the waters, but "business is war".
There was no pool in the MPEG2 days; that's why to avoid this crap they made the pool of MPEGLA, though they disclaim that the pool may not be 100% and has no guarantee of patent lawsuits.
By the way, MPEG2 has nothing to do with H.264, so don't put them together.
Comments
Only if the new product has unique properties that the two individual patents didn't have on their own, that the two patents are responsible for.
If all they do is to duplicate the functions of the individual patents in the new device, then they can't be used. That's even if the new device does have unique properties overall. The unique properties must be from the combination of those two patents.
Like taking a) melted chocolate and b) warmed milk and c) aerating the two to form a Latte.
C is an unique process that builds upon the existence of a) and b).
Like taking a) melted chocolate and b) warmed milk and c) aerating the two to form a Latte.
C is an unique process that builds upon the existence of a) and b).
A latte is two shots of espresso, with 8-10 oz of frothed milk.
The machine that made espresso rightfully got a patent; you can't patent recipes.
Why not just sue all the MPEG holders? They all "infringe."
MPEG4 came out in 1998, and earlier versions like around 1993. But, waiting to 2007 and then suing over it is quite trollish to me.
Hey, where's your video codec format? Don't have one? Don't actually make a product? Well, then, fuck off.
I'm still waiting for Sandisk to get sued over Vorbis. Each day that passes "must" mean it is legal.
Exactly. this is a frivolous lawsuit. Antiquated, overly-broad technology patents lapse when they are no longer appreciably different from public domain knowledge. In any case, after 17 to 20 years the patent is not valid, so in the case of video compression, if it is still valid today, it was probably improperly granted.
A latte is two shots of espresso, with 8-10 oz of frothed milk.
The machine that made espresso rightfully got a patent; you can't patent recipes.
In my example a and be were the process/machines that prepared the ingredients
-- a) ground the coffee/chocolate and heated/liquified it -- a standalone end result-- e.g. for drinking
-- b) heated the milk without boiling-- another standalone end result -- e.g. for drinking
C, came along and said if I take the results of a) and b) and put them through a machine/process that aerates and turns them into a separate standalone end result -- e;g; a latte, or maybe a custard, quiche, or maybe just instant latte powder.
Company "A" has two patents, and two products use them, one in each.
Company "B" takes those two patents, and builds a product that combines them. Is this allowed? Take a quick guess without looking it up.
If company B can convince the patent office that its combination of the ideas is not obvious, then it can get a patent of its own on the combination. However, this in no way protects B from being sued for infringing on the company A patents! A patent is a license to sue, it is not a protection from being sued.
A latte is two shots of espresso, with 8-10 oz of frothed milk.
Well, not always. There are various definitions although I concur that Dick's concoction is not among them. His would be a derivative a mocha.
In my example a and be were the process/machines that prepared the ingredients
-- a) ground the coffee/chocolate and heated/liquified it -- a standalone end result-- e.g. for drinking
-- b) heated the milk without boiling-- another standalone end result -- e.g. for drinking
C, came along and said if I take the results of a) and b) and put them through a machine/process that aerates and turns them into a separate standalone end result -- e;g; a latte, or maybe a custard, quiche, or maybe just instant latte powder.
Yeah, I got your point.
I just think though the last example is somewhat obvious, OR, you bought the machine to do it with from the original maker thus haven't side stepped him, OR if you did make your machine you could patent it IF it was a new process (which it doesn't seem that way but really isn't the argument anyhow
I don't understand why Apple, and other companies don't have small teams to find these patents and buy them before these other companies do. It would be much cheaper in the long run.
I don't understand why companies like Apple and Oracle don't team up and contribute to the prior art process more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_...on#Wiki_review
I've reviewed the complaint and published my analysis here:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010...ultimedia.html
I also emailed it to AppleInsider but not sure if the author of the article here received it. My blog post also explains the litigation history of that organization, which previously sued Microsoft, Dell, Gateway, and beyond that, the high tech world and its dog.
Those who are primarily interested in injunctions against products should focus on ITC investigations involving Apple and other players. The ITC's import bans are basically the equivalent of an injunction. Here's an overview of ITC investigations involving smartphones and similar technologies, and of the accused products:
http://www.scribd.com/Smartphone-Rel...ection=2770688
Lumpiest P.I. in TV history.
Who is Cannon and what do they make? I know who Canon is, but not Cannon.
Towels?
It would be nice if there were a shorter term on these patents, to make it harder for something like this to become common place and then sue. No way they didn't treat this as an investment and wait until Apple got big.
Or at least say you can't get damages for the past 10 years.
My 2 cents.
There's no point in suing a company with no money.
boom!
So that's where Steve stole that from!
That's nothing compared to what you are going to suffer when Steve's black helicopter full of ninjas comes for your a$$.
You are forgetting that Steve's ninja stars were confiscated.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...-spa-says.html
Clean room implementations of how stuff works is legal.
Meanwhile, I'm going to sue because the hot HOT coffee that I FREELY ordered, burned me when I put it between my legs while I drove down a bumpy road...
This type of thing Googles (oops!) boggles me....
I've reviewed the complaint and published my analysis here:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010...ultimedia.html
I also emailed it to AppleInsider but not sure if the author of the article here received it. My blog post also explains the litigation history of that organization, which previously sued Microsoft, Dell, Gateway, and beyond that, the high tech world and its dog.
Thanks much for the pointer to previous analysis of Alcatel-Lucent v. MPEGLA
(or vice versa). From the get-go this seems like leftovers from the MPEGLA MPEG2/H.264
"essentiality" determinations. Entities are clearly testing the "jump into the [patent] pool"
entreaty from MPEGLA, and how holdouts try to game the pool, looking for bugs in
the honor-amongst-thieves system.
What surprises me a bit is that one of the patents was assigned to IBM.
They have as much to do with MPEG2/H.264 (but not so much .MP3) as
anyone, but didn't participate in the pool. Presumably this is because they
are such a general patent monster that they cross-license with everyone
else in the computer business (software+hardware) and prefer their own
extraction of a pound of flesh above and beyond mere cross-licensing.
I never suspected that IBM would re-assign lesser patents to troll organizations
to test the waters, but "business is war".
Thanks much for the pointer to previous analysis of Alcatel-Lucent v. MPEGLA
(or vice versa). From the get-go this seems like leftovers from the MPEGLA MPEG2/H.264
"essentiality" determinations. Entities are clearly testing the "jump into the [patent] pool"
entreaty from MPEGLA, and how holdouts try to game the pool, looking for bugs in
the honor-amongst-thieves system.
What surprises me a bit is that one of the patents was assigned to IBM.
They have as much to do with MPEG2/H.264 (but not so much .MP3) as
anyone, but didn't participate in the pool. Presumably this is because they
are such a general patent monster that they cross-license with everyone
else in the computer business (software+hardware) and prefer their own
extraction of a pound of flesh above and beyond mere cross-licensing.
I never suspected that IBM would re-assign lesser patents to troll organizations
to test the waters, but "business is war".
There was no pool in the MPEG2 days; that's why to avoid this crap they made the pool of MPEGLA, though they disclaim that the pool may not be 100% and has no guarantee of patent lawsuits.
By the way, MPEG2 has nothing to do with H.264, so don't put them together.